TIME, what is it.

[RobSS]

32 minutes ago, peter said:

Doe you have evidence there is

 

What evidence do you have that there isn't?

 

32 minutes ago, peter said:

 

No I don't I believe that a lot of so called science is a load of shit

 

Okay.

 

32 minutes ago, peter said:

exactly and go where the evidence leads ,not look for a predetermined conclusion as most science does these days

 

Where has the evidence lead you, with respect to the soul, the nature of consciousness, and reality, in terms of science? Can science discover anything that doesn't already exist?

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by RobSS

[peter]

59 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

No because it isn't travelling, or moving in space, it is the space itself that is 'moving', or rather 'expanding'.

If space its self is expanding the galaxies must be moving along with it  particularly at the so called edge of the universe where the expansion would have to be the greatest therefore you would expect less expansion towards the center, maybe they are not moving relative to their respective positions in space but they would be definitely moving relative to each other

 

1 hour ago, Truthspoon said:

he curved nature of space is pretty much accepted now

I agree but generally accept theories don't make them correct,I'm not saying it's not but there are a couple of independent researcher's coming up with very impressive alternatives at present.

Just something to ponder , if you shine a light into the heavens and I agree it will bend slightly  when it goes past the sun due to gravity and do the same thing as it passes the next ,then the next and so fourth and so fourth,

eventually it will return to the point where it originated from because it can't escape this universe,so tell me what body light can't even escape from (a black hole ) so that means we effectively live inside a black hole, like I said just something to think about 

[peter]

6 hours ago, RobSS said:

Where has the evidence lead you, with respect to the soul, the nature of consciousness, and reality, in terms of science?

I generally don't tell people what my beliefs are because they're private and when it's all said and done its nobody else's business but since you asked

1 First of, old science evidence has led me nowhere,unlike new science like Nassim Harrimen with regards to the nature of reality and the emergence of consciousness from the field

2 I have read quite a few books and manuscripts  on the subject over the years  both old and new from all different angles,and for what its worth this is what I've come up with whether right or wrong

A There is no god

B there is no creator

C there is a fundamental universal mechanism that allows matter and consciousness to emerge into reality

D There is a universal consciousness that resides outside our body and the brain is simply a tuning mechanism , therefore we tune in via our own unique individual perspective

E Every thing is conscious

F The body may cease to exist but individual  consciousness remains

G As far as the soul goes I haven't reached any conclusions as yet because I have more questions than possible answers at present

There is more, but like I said it's no one else's business  

 

 

Can science discover anything that doesn't already exist?

 

 

What type of question is that, I hope your not inferring that god can discover things that don't exist

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by peter

[Origin]

15 hours ago, peter said:

Could you please expand on that statement, I'm not aware of how many bacteria have colonized my left eyebrow, however I fail to see how time does or doesn't matter or is indeed relevant in that instance.

Also the use of the word sophisticated is rather subjective ,you would have to define sophisticated and set boundaries or parameters as to the level of sophistication you are referring to, something may be more sophisticated than something else but never the less both things are sophisticated in their own right 

All the supposedly high technology that humans possess is not able to answer a single question. If you can't see anything, how are you going to explore it? You should take a closer look at the term Technomancy/technomagic. And what it would mean if beings who are at the very beginning would encounter it. But you don't have to. I know you've made up your mind that humans actually have real knowledge.

 

[RobSS]

7 hours ago, peter said:

I generally don't tell people what my beliefs are because they're private and when it's all said and done its nobody else's business but since you asked

1 First of, old science evidence has led me nowhere,unlike new science like Nassim Harrimen with regards to the nature of reality and the emergence of consciousness from the field

2 I have read quite a few books and manuscripts  on the subject over the years  both old and new from all different angles,and for what its worth this is what I've come up with whether right or wrong

A There is no god

B there is no creator

C there is a fundamental universal mechanism that allows matter and consciousness to emerge into reality

D There is a universal consciousness that resides outside our body and the brain is simply a tuning mechanism , therefore we tune in via our own unique individual perspective

E Every thing is conscious

F The body may cease to exist but individual  consciousness remains

G As far as the soul goes I haven't reached any conclusions as yet because I have more questions than possible answers at present

There is more, but like I said it's no one else's business  

 

 

Can science discover anything that doesn't already exist?

 

 

What type of question is that, I hope your not inferring that god can discover things that don't exist

 

 

Doesn't seem like you're ruling out the possibility of God. Regarding my  question, "Can science discover anything that doesn't already exist?" I'm surprised you answered, "What type of question is that?" It's a perfectly straight forward question to which the simple answer must be "No, science cannot discover anything that doesn't already exist." This doesn't matter though because the delight and of wonder of life is the journey... finding things out, and not taking things too seriously. It's also the case that God cannot discover anything that doesn't already exist, obviously because God is everything. So science will always lead to God, but never become God or some kind of Creative Intelligence that creates time because the more science knows, the less it seems to understand about consciousness. At least you're keeping an open mind, which is not a bad thing.

 

[bobb]

On 12/24/2021 at 12:23 AM, alexa said:

Time began on the forth day of creation with the sun & the moon and the stars & through their movements they gave us signs for night & day/years & the seasons etc, this is how we calculate time.

 

I like this, so on the fourth day He gave us a means to calculate Time but not Time itself, so I wonder if the three days before are somehow symbolic of Three Dimensions?

[bobb]

On 1/10/2022 at 2:49 PM, peter said:

I know it has nothing to do with the subject,or maybe it does

That's the funny thing about time it don't matter what your on about it's always present annoyingly.

[bobb]

9 hours ago, peter said:

A There is no god

B there is no creator

C there is a fundamental universal mechanism that allows matter and consciousness to emerge into reality

D There is a universal consciousness that resides outside our body and the brain is simply a tuning mechanism , therefore we tune in via our own unique individual perspective

E Every thing is conscious

F The body may cease to exist but individual  consciousness remains

I like what you have written except you have a massive contradiction going on.

[bobb]

On 12/24/2021 at 6:36 AM, m754 said:

 

Time is not linear, it is cyclical--closed loop. Time-space arises as a consequence of material manifestation--it is matter that causes 'time' to appear. To escape this prison loop, break the cycle that causes this loop to perpetuate.

And yet it is there in the beginning, confusing, no?

[bobb]

On 1/10/2022 at 2:49 PM, peter said:

We could also say  that because all matter  is made up of atoms spinning at the speed of light  time should not exist. You can also throw space time into the mix and also the Plank field (the infinite energy in the space between sub atomic particles)

This is what I was alluding to in my previous post I know it's crude but I think it's there.

 

On 12/23/2021 at 5:36 PM, bobb said:

 

I disagree here, anyone for a cocktail?

 

[peter]

3 hours ago, RobSS said:

 Regarding my  question, "Can science discover anything that doesn't already exist?" I'm surprised you answered, "What type of question is that?" It's a perfectly straight forward question to which the simple answer must be "No

That's right it must be no so why ask it

[RobSS]

8 minutes ago, peter said:

That's right it must be no so why ask it

 

Just to keep things in perspective, that's all.

 

[peter]

6 hours ago, Origin said:

All the supposedly high technology that humans possess is not able to answer a single question.

That's a fairly broad statement, a single question about what?, or just a single question period

 

6 hours ago, Origin said:

 But you don't have to. I know you've made up your mind that humans actually have real knowledge.

How do you know what I think and what knowledge are you talking about ,real or otherwise

Edited January 11, 2022 by peter

[peter]

2 hours ago, bobb said:

I like what you have written except you have a massive contradiction going on.

could you point out where

[bobb]

5 minutes ago, peter said:

could you point out where

A and B, is in conflict with C, D, E and F, if you ask me it is C, D , E and F is the defining quality of what one might term God/Creator, but A and B you say there is none of, I am not trying to hammer home anything I like what you posted, just pointing out the conflict.

[peter]

1 hour ago, bobb said:

A and B, is in conflict with C, D, E and F, if you ask me it is C, D , E and F is the defining quality of what one might term God/Creator, but A and B you say there is none of, I am not trying to hammer home anything I like what you posted, just pointing out the conflict.

Ah ,and there lies the crux of this entire debate as I see it.  That's not what I thought you were going to say, I thought I was going to have to elaborate on something else.

First off , the majority of people see god  as an all seeing all knowing entity, that created the heavens and earth and back in the day that would have been a fair assumption to make ,someone or something must have created all this, it couldn't be otherwise.

With over 3000 gods to choose from one would have to ask which is the correct god to follow each being as relevant to his or her followers as all the others are  with respect to their own chosen deity.

You could make the argument that all these different forms of religion and worship are all beholding to the one true god and indeed worshiping the same entity from their societies own unique perspective and practices.

Then comes along organized religion which is simply a method of gaining power and control and in this day and age   most follow these organized religions, the latest being climate change and covid (you must follow the word of god or you will be cast into the fires of hell etc etc, but he loves you). Who wrote the word of god ,man did, funny about that. 

Next we have the latest term thrown into the mix , the creator ( ripped off from the indigenous American Indians) and thrust upon society in the form of the new age movement which certainly is  anything but new as the term still indicates the existence of a supernatural being that is the reason for our reality.

What I think whether right or wrong, there is a fundamental mechanism that is universal and allows matter and consciousness to emerge from the field.

So in my estimation you could call the infinite Planck field  god if you like but it certainly isn't  some old bastard up in the sky with a lump of 4x2 waiting for you to stuff up.

The other thing that is glaringly obvious to me is is most peoples beliefs are due to circumstance and passed from generation to generation with not so much as a thought as to why ,eg if you were born in Iran your not going to grow up a bloody roman catholic

Edited January 11, 2022 by peter

[alexa]

3 hours ago, bobb said:

 

I like this, so on the fourth day He gave us a means to calculate Time but not Time itself, so I wonder if the three days before are somehow symbolic of Three Dimensions?

 

Air, Water & Earth or 02, H20 & Carbon, now who could create this but God.

[RobSS]

2 minutes ago, peter said:

Ah ,and there lies the crux of this entire debate as I see it.  That's not what I thought you were going to say, I thought I was going to have to elaborate on something else.

First off , the majority of people see god  as an all seeing all knowing entity, that created the heavens and earth and back in the day that would have been a fair assumption to make ,someone or something must have created all this, it couldn't be otherwise.

With over 3000 gods to choose from one would have to ask which is the correct god to follow each being as relevant to his or her followers as all the others are  with respect to their own chosen deity.

You could make the argument that all these different forms of religion and worship are all beholding to the one true god and indeed worshiping the same entity from their societies own unique perspective and practices.

Then comes along organized religion which is simply a method of gaining power and control and in this day and age in the  most follow these organized religions, the latest being climate change and covid (you must follow the word of god or you will be cast into the fires of hell etc etc, but he loves you). Who wrote the word of god ,man did, funny about that. 

Next we have the latest term thrown into the mix , the creator ( ripped off from the indigenous American Indians) and thrust upon society in the form of the new age movement which certainly is nothing new as the term still indicates the existence of a supernatural being that is the reason for our reality.

What I think whether right or wrong, there is a fundamental mechanism that is universal that allows matter and consciousness to emerge from the field.

So in my estimation you could call the infinite Planck field  god if you like but it certainly isn't  some old bastard up in the sky with a lump of 4x2 waiting for you to stuff up

 

I've never met anyone who believes God is "some old bastard up in the sky with a lump of 4x2 waiting for you to stuff up". Not saying no one believes that but it's an outdated characterisation. 

 

The thing with God is that it's true that "with over 3000 gods to choose from", it's not an easy task, but that's the job of theologians and anyone interested in the subject to research ancient texts and come to some kind of understanding of what's going on, and comparing what's found with what we know about how the world is today, and thanks to people like David Icke and many other researchers who've studied the occult and secret societies, it's not too difficult to form pictures of what's going on with respect to who our rulers are really serving, and where secret societies and the power elites get their power from. All this understanding contributes to the understanding of consciousness, the soul and reality in general, etc., all without even resorting to science, although Sir Isaac Newton had a good go, with his forays into alchemy and the occult. Not to mention that the Royal Society, which established a foundation for the promotion of science, was founded by Freemasonry, which was also one of the powerhouses of the Enlightenment. So even science isn't free of occult associations. If anyone restricts themselves to science to understand total reality, this can only result in a very myopic view:

William Blake: Newton (1795–1805)

 

 

 

[peter]

4 minutes ago, RobSS said:

've never met anyone who believes God is "some old bastard up in the sky with a lump of 4x2 waiting for you to stuff up". Not saying no one believes that but it's an outdated characterisation. 

Did I say I believed that, it was an analogy , the problem with most people these days is their mouth is in first with the clutch out before brain is out of neutral 

[RobSS]

9 minutes ago, peter said:

Did I say I believed that, it was an analogy , the problem with most people these days is their mouth is in first with the clutch out before brain is out of neutral 

 

I didn't say that you did believe that. My point was that it's an outdated analogy.

 

[peter]

15 minutes ago, RobSS said:

 

I didn't say that you did believe that. My point was that it's an outdated analogy.

 

OK my apologies , I guess my brain was still in neutral

[RobSS]

Just now, peter said:

OK my apologies , I guess my brain was still in neutral

 

No problem.

[bobb]

52 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Air, Water & Earth or 02, H20 & Carbon, now who could create this but God.

 

I was more coming from the mathematical perspective or in my case maff's, as in 3 Dimensions + 1 of Time or perhaps more concisely written, 1 of time + 3 Dimensions, the fourth day you get to measure all four with your thumb.

Apologies God I meant the sixth day, or was it the fifth, yep ill take the fifth on that one, as they say across the pond scum.

Edited January 11, 2022 by bobb

[alexa]

29 minutes ago, bobb said:

 

I was more coming from the mathematical perspective or in my case maff's, as in 3 Dimensions + 1 of Time or perhaps more concisely written, 1 of time + 3 Dimensions, the fourth day you get to measure all four with your thumb.

Apologies God I meant the sixth day, or was it the fifth, yep ill take the fifth on that one, as they say across the pond scum.

 

Sorry bobb, math's was never one of my better subjects, always bottom of the class in it.  

[bobb]

11 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Sorry bobb, math's was never one of my better subjects, always bottom of the class in it.  

 

mine neither 2+2 = 4

big brother, it's 5 you nitwit, get to the back of the class

awwwwww